Bibliography Formatting Software: An Evaluation
Template
Head-to-head comparison between ProCite, EndNote and
Reference Manager (TM ISI Researchsoft) via an
evaluation grid
by Francesco Dell'Orso (online from September 1999)
Introduction
Bibliography formatting software (BFS1)
is a group of programs designed to help users in
compiling bibliographies and managing textual records in
one or more databases.
Originally, these packages were specifically conceived
to facilitate the task of writing papers with all their
bibliographic citations. To switch from one style format
(e.g. from Chicago to Turabian or to APA) should just be
a matter of selection: hundreds of citation styles are
there and more can be added by the user himself to fit
the requirements for publishers and scientific journals.
Bibliography formatting software packages have evolved
significantly since their first appearance in the early
80's, and now can be seen as a tool for completely
managing textual databases.
Not only do they take care of the output process: they
also provide functions to import data derived from
electronic sources and to intercept possible duplicates,
to sort records, to search by means of Boolean operators
and to edit data. Their object is not exclusively bound
to bibliographic citations, but more generally to textual
data. However, "bibliography" still remains
their singularity.
Which are the main features that distinguish them from
other textual database manager programs and why should
one resort to this type of product rather than using a
generic DBMS database management system?
1. From the point of view of database structure, they
can be defined flat-file managers with a
vertical structure like: Database -> Record ->
Field (-> Subfields) -> Multiple values: they are
ready-to-use products with database definition already
designed including reference types for different kind of
documents: books, chapters, journal articles, patents,
e-mail, dissertations.
2. Fields are of variable length and can have multiple
values and specific attributes, e.g.: searching, sorting,
printing take care of the features of fields like
authors, titles, pages, date, keywords ... It is common
that fields attributes cannot be changed at will or moved
to another field. It is common that all the fields
automatically have their content indexed and thus
searchable.
3. They offer filters to convert and import
bibliographic data from external electronic sources such
as: CD-ROM, Internet catalogues, local OPAC.
4. They have a very distinctive function: the
so-called "manuscript formatting" procedure.
This process consists in inserting references to database
records into a document prepared by means of a word
processor, in order to eventually have all the in-text
citations and the final reference list automatically
generated and formatted within the document.
5. They offer hundreds of output formats for citation
styles fitting the requirements of publishers, scientific
associations, scholar journals: Nature, APA, MLA,
Vancouver, Index Medicus ...they can all be used to
display and print data. Printing includes sorting records
according to nested keys.
6. Increasingly they embed or work in co-operation
with Z39.50 search clients ready to import the retrieved
and downloaded data.
7. In general, their makers supply users with
ready-made and ready-to-use objects, rather than with the
tool to develop their own products. Thus, the language to
design output styles and import filters tends to be
limited -and efficient at the same time- by offering
numerous sophisticated options already prepared and ready
to be selected with the mouse. As a result of that, they
are very easy-to-use packages, efficient within the
boundaries that develpers have pre-set and that the user
cannot overcome by developing his own application,
script, routine.
These are all features that one cannot usually find in
generic and relational DBMS like dbase, Access,
FileMaker, Paradox. Thereby users can develop new
applications and build new objects by resorting to the
design tools and the programming language provided with
the DBMS. As users decide not to rely on specifically
designed packages, but rather to adopt a generic,
flexible and powerful tool, they must be expert and
willing to struggle on their own -or relying on valuable
help- to achieve similar functionalities. Not only will
users have to define and built the database structure,
along with input forms, output styles, searching sorting,
printing, import/export routines, but they will also have
to ensure maintenance of their product for the future.
BFS have been conceived, developed, maintained and
marketed especially for the individual -mostly the
academic researcher- working with his own personal
computer database and goals, and not for the library or
information service, though they have been successfully
used in those environments too.
Unlike relational DBMS, BFS does not have a
relational-type structure, does not offer separate tables
to join and therefore they are not suitable at all to
implement a non-bibliographic management of bibliographic
data, e.g.: circulation or periodicals control in a
library.
They also have very limited multimedia functionality
(graphic, sound, animation) nor are they made to handle
and calculate numeric data.
Although their size limits -thanks also to current
hardware and operating systems- only tend to increase
(number and size of database, records, fields...), they
do not have the capacity to host generic library
catalogues.
These factors all contribute to sustain the "personal"
nature of this kind of software.
Librarians and information professionals would benefit
from a closer glance at this kind of product as it is the
most specific bibliographical computerized tool that
their users might employ. Thanks to downloading and
importing routines, these software packages play a role
in facilitating information and data communication
between local or remote catalogues and the end-user.
The document that I am presenting here is a detailed
analysis of this kind of product achieved by means of an
evaluation template with a checklist in table form. It
should facilitate analysis, description and evaluation of
a software program belonging to this category. There are
other similar tables in the Internet, namely the recent
works done by M.
Shapland, P. Evans
and reviewers in Chorus
just to mention a few. In general they are more synthetic
and cover a larger number of packages than the one I am
presenting here. I have added a list
of references to web resources on bibliography formatting
software.
The sample application of the template is given here
by applying it to three outstanding products: ProCite,
EndNote and Reference Manager2.
I would be pleased to see other people and colleagues
exploiting and enhancing the template for other products
and features.
I have published several articles on this kind of
software, mostly in the professional journal Biblioteche
Oggi (ISSN 0392-8586), but all in Italian; quite
evidently, English is not my first language and while I
apologize, I frankly encourage any reader to send me
comments and corrections.
Francesco Dell'Orso, University of Perugia (Italy) dellorso@unipg.it
1. They are called in many different ways:
personal bibliographic managers;
reference manager databases; database reference
management software; personal citation managers, research
information managers, research information assistants...
etc. Sometimes they are also called personal information
managers -PIM, which is another category of products on
its own. PIM are free-form database managers designed to
handle unformatted pieces of recorded information, i.e.
data not belonging to the traditional document type
records. Packages like AskSam, Cardbox belong to this
category, while they can certainly manage textual and
bibliographic data too. "Personal bibliographic
managers" would probably be a better definition than
bibliography formatting software. I am mainly using the
latter as it is already familiar to users, and it
emphasizes one important feature that of formatting the
output. Formatting citations for the output was the most
preminent characteristic at the beginning and is still an
outstanding one.
2. The content of the review table has been
double-checked with the producers of the packages:
special thanks to Jeff Jackson and Becky Larson for their
courtesy and continuous support.
Table of contents
Legend
References to web resources
1 Identity card
2 Installation and start
3 General
4 Database and record structure
5 Input/Edit
6 Import
7 Search
8 Thesaurus
9 Output and Print
10 FL-Formatting language to
define output styles
11 Sort
12 Export
13 Manuscript formatting
14 Term /Entry list - authority
file
15 Documentation
Back to top of page
F. Dell'Orso, Bibliography
Formatting Software: An Evaluation Template. 1999
Last Update: August, 18, 1999
|
|